Previous  1 ... 4  5  6  7  8  9  10 ... 30  Next

Murder is murder you say! This is a very Christian attitude. I am a Christian and am pro Choice, which does not to seem to make sense. But are all anti choice people against the death penelty? I think not. Is every anti choice person willing to stand up and say that the death of Muslims in (name place) murder? I think not. For these happenings they have an excuse that exempts them from the teachings of the Bible. They may like their excuses for their murder, I like mine for allowing abortions under certain circumstances. Go figure!

   

Oh Silly Lily! I thought you weren't stupid anymore!

How about when I wrote this too:



See how I addressed that there were other considerations rather than legal ones alone? My point is that the legal one is the most important, since it is ultimately the final one. So where is the black and white Lily?

Did I catch you making shit up again? I hope not Lily, you're much too honest for that!

And where is the rest of the post regarding your comparison between culpable homicide and abortion? I hope you're not planning on cheating me out of that brilliant masterpiece! I was so looking forward to you applying your Lily BigBrain (TM) to the situation!

Gotta luv me!

   

Just recently in Saskatchewan, a religious run, public funded hospital board attempted to ban tubal ligations(sp?) for any reason apart from the life of the mother being threatend. The religious right has and will attempt to ban birth control and disease control in its attempts to control what people do and think. By the way, the end results here in Sask was the loss of control of the hospital by the church

   

Aaaaand here we see Silly Lily at her finest! Notice what Lily did NOT address in her response.

1. She did not define what she perceives to be the similarities between culpable homicide and abortion. However, she simply stated they were the same. Of course, we haven't yet noticed her rebuttal of my analysis of the concrete stance on the exceptions to be made for culpable homicide as not invalidating one's stance that it is universally abhorrent.

2. Lily did not address how I stated there were a myriad ramifications for women making the choice to have an abortion, but instead the legal one was the most important one. Instead, she simply limps away from having been caught out...again. Will she ever retract saying that I saw the whole thing as black and white rather than analyzing the total circumstances and making a rational decision about how to proceed? No! She'd rather change the subject.

3. Lily also has yet to apply the Lily BigBrain (TM) on actually defining any sort of middle-ground between absolute pro-life and absolute freedom of abortion. Instead, she skirts around the sides, never taking a stance. See points 1 and 2 for what happens when she actually does try to take a stance. It's disastrous.

4. Lily's last point about who can and cannot condone exceptions is irrelevant. I see the reasons people want to condone exceptions to their stances on abortion, I don't even care if they do. My point was in rebuttal to those pro-lifers who believe pro-choice people lack moral backbone. I was pointing out how the reverse was more true. Lily didn't understand that. I guess her Lily BigBrain (TM) was out of batteries.

Gotta luv me Silly Lily!

   

I certainly wouldn't want yo be 'branded' for my views but in this case will go out on a limb.

I'm in complete agreement with you Stratos.

   

If the person is going to die from giving birth. That would be my only exception if I had any say in the law.

   

[quote="Blue_Nose"][

That being said, how many people would be "sickened" by watching open heart surgery? Facial reconstruction of a child that was in a car crash? An autopsy of that child if they died? Are all those things innappropriate because they're "sickening"?

Probably most people would be sickened.

However, the examples you have given are 'necessarily life-saving'. Also in the case of the autopsy of the child because any knowledge gained would be used to hopefully save another life in when dealing with similar trauma.

   

If the state is providing the abortion then the state is well within its rights to insist on counseling to prevent the patient from possibly committing suicide. The state requires that only licensed practitioners perform abortions so the state is also free to require counseling.

Putting aside the pro-life or pro-choice thing for a moment, this is a separate issue that needs to be addressed.

My concern here is for the life of the patient. Oddly, the life of the mother is one of the arguments in support of abortion. If the people using that argument truly meant it as more than just a point of debate then they'd insist on counseling to preserve the life of the women they supposedly want to save.

That you could save the life of the mother with an abortion while not caring a whit if she kills herself afterward makes the pro-choice argument in this regard ring hollow.

   

I agree. At the same time the mother should be saved by ending the pregnancy every effort should be made to save the baby, as well.

There is no medically valid reason or medically justifiable argument to support abortion in the third trimester that requires the death of the baby. NONE. These children are being killed as a matter of convenience.

   

In a perfect world, the decision would be that easy. What if doctors disagree on the diagnosis of death from delivery? There will always be a situation which defies or challenges whatever line in the sand you draw.

There's also the jurisprudent consideration of creating precedent. If the state can intervene in this aspect of a woman's body, what other interventions can the state make? The slippery slope starts. It isn't just this lone decision you're making, it's a host of decisions down the road looking to this particular decision as the base.

Bart,

Perhaps post-abortion counselling could be mandatory. You're right, if it is about the security of the mother, there should be consideration given to the mother's mental health afterwards. Would there be sanctions against a woman who skips counselling? I'd say that's too far outside the scope of this discussion.

   

Guess what Lily? I don't disagree with you one bit. For the last time, fire up the Lily BigBrain (TM) and have a listen. My point is that when pro-lifers state that pro-choicers lack a moral backbone, the shoe fits on them as well.



Once again Silly Lily, you're putting words into my mouth. I guess that stands as all the evidence you have for claiming it. However, all of the other considerations what face a woman, the mental, social, professional, religious and medical are debatable. This means that the legal consideration is of the utmost importance. If the procedure is illegal, the rest of the arguments mostly fall away. Check out the 60's for what life was like in an abortion prohibition era.

Legally speaking, in Canada we have the Charter of Rights and Freedoms which grants us S. 7. It's influence on this decision is irresistable. So, we focus on the legal aspect first. Is your Lily BigBrain (TM) over-heating yet? No? I think you're lying but we continue.

If S. 7 makes the security of the mother's person paramount, abortion must be available for her. Therefore, all of the other arguments, as compelling as they may be, are essentially moot. If you want to switch your argument to ways to prevent or influence a woman's decision which don't involve legal prevention, you have a world of new options.

Did you get all that?



And here's why Silly Lily needs to check the batteries on her Lily BigBrain (TM) before responding to things. I had only finished writing I see the reasons people want to condone exceptions to their stances on abortion, I don't even care if they do.

Wait a titch, that would mean Lily fucked up AGAIN! We'd better double-check, Lily does has a Lily BigBrain (TM) afterall.

I see the reasons people want to condone exceptions to their stances on abortion, I don't even care if they do.

Yup. Lily was certainly wrong. Will Silly Lily apologize? Probably not.



There is certainly middle-ground you unimaginative pinhead. Don't lump me in with your cognitive limitations. As I've said before, abortion isn't strictly a legal decision. Pro-lifers are certainly capable of campaigning, showing videos of abortions, advertising their services all in an effort to convince women who are considering an abortion not to have one. By keeping social pressures up on not having abortions become retroactive birth-control, pro-lifers can exercise a great deal of abortion prevention.



Once again, you'll have to fire up the Lily BigBrain (TM). I agree with you on this point, there is no argument. You're trying hard to find fault with me, but you're failing miserably. That's why you've got to invent inculpatory things, ignore exculpatory things and generally be a pill.

And hey, where's that analysis of culpable homicide and abortion? Are you working hard on it? I was hoping that you would be able to WOW me with your impressive command of legal acumen.

Fuck I rule.

   

Dayseed thanks for the quick run down on the S 7 clause.

Yes the last bit of my post was sarcastic.

Interesting the argument you give of Fetus VS Womans right. Not a lawyer per say so not going to try and break it down. Sounds like its already been fought in Canadian court.

Kaetz and Dayseed: As for the Father talking the woman out of the abortion
Yes it is possible but still I am being very hypethical here with the statement and can only go off the fact of what I believe I would feel if after having consensual sex with a woman who turns up prego and then demands she has the right to abort the child. My thinking goes along the lines of ..

Willingly had sex and knows that with sex the possibility of pregnancy is high.

Got prego. Should have the baby. If she does not want to raise the baby then let the father raise the child. If neither wants to raise the child adoption.



Now just to stir the pot.

If a person has a right to live because they were once a fetus and then born does it not follow that a fetus has the right to be born? At what point does one gain the right to live. At birth, conception, 2nd trimester, 3rd trimester?

   

IMO on condoms, the Pill and other kind of contraception it in not abortion but a form of prevention. As for the morning after pill ... I really don't know to much about it and truthfully don't feel one way or another towards it at this time and thus have no opinion on it.

   

Dayseed you wrote "If S. 7 makes the security of the mother's person paramount, abortion must be available for her."

Does this hold up for when a woman wants to abort the fetus do to unwanted pregnancy or just for when the possibility of giving birth could kill the mother?

   

one of the quirks from coming from such a dysfunctional family like mine...my child and my present wife's children were all conceived as a result of planning and i'm happy to say we have no known abortions in our family..we always taught birth control and it hit home which pleases me to say..and thats exactly the reason i oppose abortion to the extent i do

   

Previous  1 ... 4  5  6  7  8  9  10 ... 30  Next